The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-08-07
MEMPHIS DAILY AppEAI--sUNDAY, AUGUST 7, 1887.

the States, and which is the funda-
mental rule of the common law as to
all elections, in the absence OF any
special directions; the rule, namely:
That the election shall be deter
mined by majority OF those voting
on the subject submitted. Massa.
chusetts, 1922, substantially copied
the New York improvement, though
it uses other words to express the en-
larged power OF the Legislature, and
uses merely qualified voters" to de-
scribe the electoral body. Texas, 1897,
is MexicaniEed hybridism, copied
from the Mexican imita-
ton of our American Con-
stitutiou, and need not be no
ticed. Delaware's importau amend
ment of 1881, the only Constitution
/ taat refers 10 u previous election as
a cohtingently evideutial factor in
the problem, has been alrea-y suil-
cicntly noticed. Mississippi, 1882,
is very important because it repeats
substantially the disputed words and
applies them to a direct vote upon
the amendment, but they are made
entirely appropriate by adhering to the
essential accompaniment OF q re-
quirement that the election shall be
simultaneously held at "the next
general election. 1t did not separate
these interdependent requirements
and fall between two stools by giving
the legislature power to order an
election on amendments at any time
and still require an electoral body
appropriate only 10 a general election
| Tor representatives, as Tennessee did
two years later.
At the convention Of 1884, the
Tennessee workmen committed that
blunder, carelessly it may be said,
with due reverence for ones fore
fathers. Trying, naturally, to uso as
much of our swn phraseology OF
1896 as possible, but determined to
adopt the New York plan OF allow.
ing the Legislature the discretion Of
selecting apy time for the election +,
they set out to adapt these two
models to the purpose Of submitting
the amendments directly to the
people and inattentively overlooked
the inapplicability OF the phrasoology
of 1906 in their own Consti-
ution TO this new contrlvanee
of submitting the amendments
at any time the Legislature might
prescribe. Striking out the require.
ment of l796 that the question OF
northumberland, calling a conven.
ton to amend-shsuld be determined
at the next election for members OF
the General Assembly" they copied
the words OF New York, 1921, as 10
the duty of the General Assembly,
exactly; but returning TO their own
words Of 1896, they describe the cleo
toral act TO be "by a majority OF all
the citizens of the States voting for
representatives, voting IN their
favor" changing the language OF
| 1876, which reads: III 1t shall ap-
pear that majority Of all the citi'
z,ns Of the STATE, voting for repro
sentauvos, have voted Tor a conven.
ton" which is only grammatical
reconstruction to suit change o.
expression, also copied from New
York. 10 describe the electoral act
namely, and IL the people shall ap
prove aud ratiiy such amendment ol
amendments, " instead OF IF IL shal
appear" etc. as in Tennessee, l19G
THIS was an egrcgious aud uninten
, ti0nal error, as any one must see VIII
traces the matter by the indGlibl,
signs that are discovered by a rudi
mentary examination aud compari
: sou, such as is here attempted.
IL is not necessary 10 here compar,
! 80 closely the constitutions iramc'
. between 1884 aud 1870, when the las
. Tennessee convention met. Tha
, body coutented itself with an exac
e copy OF tho 1894 ar iclo on amend
!, ments, with an addition not peru
0 nont here, except that tho wor
d time" takes the plural form, whic
. has been thought TO be . misprint
0 but il appears 10 that form Ia Texas
0 1886, aud in Virginia, 1870, this las
r being framed, however, as early q
D 1861, from which Tennessee ma
1 have copied il. IL seems, however
G 10 be an immatorial change 30 lar a
Q it affects the present inquiry.
d The bluuder thus made is NOR
culpable in the convention OF lsI
n than the other, for the least atlentio
2 TO the subject Of inquiry into Oh
j. rule OF other States, would hay
shown how carefully this Tennessee
@ mjsprision had been avoided IN all {
$ them aud they would have seen ho
x Delaware aud Kentucky had bee
{, compelled to supplement their art
d cles on amendments 10 give thoI
9 effective operation, where the oleC
! toril body chosen is not soli.aseeI
4 tanning aud self registering. Th
), wrnnching OF the old formula ofl7,
d from its cs5Xisteut context was lik
y soycring the plant from it, root, an
Il trying to glow ~ upon a strange roo
?, aud the stock argument that lawyer
II use when they soy that the Ia
70 makers are presumed TO use NJ
n words 10 express a given intent, car
y NNA hllNN w SUM nANNNhAg WIZ :
Z this, aud IL requires something MOI
,, than a Chinese worship Of ancestor
% 10 oudeayor 10 make anything oli
out Of il but bad Job by unskillf'
], workmon. by that mishtting ,
d Kentucky and Tennessee patterns
n ancient form with the more moder
}. type Of New York, words whio
o when applied to the next olectio
10 for members OF the General Assem-
% bly," we're accurately descriptive OF
i self registering electoral body, has
q become quite insensible and meat
" ingless whom applied 10 any othe
o election not Of that character, and
. may be doubtful IL by any kind ,
Y compression or expansion sent
y can be got out Of them, without ur
Il authorized tinkering, by those VII
y are not assembled 10 convention I
h frame constitutions and cure deiecI
Ia discovered Ia tho old framework ,
. A / - A a - I-..l-.